I thought he manned up pretty well. Just said he was fired up, didn't even wait for the play to be over before he pulled the challenge flag out.

A lot of people in the Fark football thread were complaining (and a lot of them got the interpretation of the rule completely wrong) but essentially the rule is to keep coaches from being jackasses. It's like saying, "Listen, this is going to be automatically reviewed, so shut your yap and let the process begin. Stop trying to be an attention whore."

If you can't follow that simple rule, you'll lose your right to due process.

jaylectricity:I thought he manned up pretty well. Just said he was fired up, didn't even wait for the play to be over before he pulled the challenge flag out.

A lot of people in the Fark football thread were complaining (and a lot of them got the interpretation of the rule completely wrong) but essentially the rule is to keep coaches from being jackasses. It's like saying, "Listen, this is going to be automatically reviewed, so shut your yap and let the process begin. Stop trying to be an attention whore."

If you can't follow that simple rule, you'll lose your right to due process.

I understand why the rule was put into place, but I do believe the no review part is pretty harsh. I'd like to see that part changed. Keep the penalty yards, though. That should be enough of a deterrent.

SnarfVader:I understand why the rule was put into place, but I do believe the no review part is pretty harsh. I'd like to see that part changed. Keep the penalty yards, though. That should be enough of a deterrent.

I'd like it to change so that any part of any play except for penalties can be booth reviewed, and any part of any play except for penalties can be challenged by coaches (max 2 if they miss one, with a bonus one if they're right both times.) Basically, how most college conferences do it now. Also basically, the best of the challenge system with the best of the old system.

SnarfVader:I understand why the rule was put into place, but I do believe the no review part is pretty harsh. I'd like to see that part changed. Keep the penalty yards, though. That should be enough of a deterrent.

Not in the case of yesterday's play. Kickoffs are already all likely to result in touchbacks anyway, so a 15-yard penalty on the kickoff isn't much of a deterrent.

VvonderJesus:Take out the part where the play can't be challenged, but add in the coach loses that challenge (if that isn't already in the rules)

jaylectricity:SnarfVader: I understand why the rule was put into place, but I do believe the no review part is pretty harsh. I'd like to see that part changed. Keep the penalty yards, though. That should be enough of a deterrent.

Here's the unintended stupid side of that rule: if, instead of Detroit, it had been Houston that threw the challenge flag -- for no reason, admittedly -- the review would have been negated, and hey, free touchdown.

At some point, this will happen.

The NFL should just scrap the rule; it's pointless the way it is written now.

Ed_Severson:Here's the unintended stupid side of that rule: if, instead of Detroit, it had been Houston that threw the challenge flag -- for no reason, admittedly -- the review would have been negated, and hey, free touchdown.

Wrong. The Texans could not benefit from a review. They already had a touchdown ruled in their favor. Therefore, them throwing the flag would not have invoked this rule.

Ed_Severson:Here's the unintended stupid side of that rule: if, instead of Detroit, it had been Houston that threw the challenge flag -- for no reason, admittedly -- the review would have been negated, and hey, free touchdown.

At some point, this will happen.

The NFL should just scrap the rule; it's pointless the way it is written now.

No, it won't happen, because the rule says the challenging team cannot BENEFIT from a review. As the team that would be HURT by the review, throwing the challenge flag wouldn't prevent a review.

Ed_Severson:Here's the unintended stupid side of that rule: if, instead of Detroit, it had been Houston that threw the challenge flag -- for no reason, admittedly -- the review would have been negated, and hey, free touchdown.

jaylectricity:A lot of people in the Fark football thread were complaining (and a lot of them got the interpretation of the rule completely wrong) but essentially the rule is to keep coaches from being jackasses. It's like saying, "Listen, this is going to be automatically reviewed, so shut your yap and let the process begin. Stop trying to be an attention whore."

It also prevents the opposing coach from being an asshat and running a play immediately before it gets reviewed.

I'm okay with this, but I can see a play not getting challenged and finding out it's not an automatic review.

Yanks_RSJ:Ed_Severson: Here's the unintended stupid side of that rule: if, instead of Detroit, it had been Houston that threw the challenge flag -- for no reason, admittedly -- the review would have been negated, and hey, free touchdown.

Wadded Beef:jaylectricity: SnarfVader: I understand why the rule was put into place, but I do believe the no review part is pretty harsh. I'd like to see that part changed. Keep the penalty yards, though. That should be enough of a deterrent.

Also, if you're the ball carrier, why wouldn't you just run it into the end zone every play? Just keep going, even if tackled, get up and run into the end zone. Apparently there are refs out there stupid enough to reward you.

I agree this is kind of a silly rule. At the very least it has to be amended to say something along the lines that if you do what Schwartz did, the play still gets reviewed but you lose your challenge regardless of the outcome. So essentially you wasted your challenge. Maybe even throw in a small fine.

chuggernaught:Also, if you're the ball carrier, why wouldn't you just run it into the end zone every play? Just keep going, even if tackled, get up and run into the end zone. Apparently there are refs out there stupid enough to reward you.

I think the issue is that there was no whistle to say he was down. If there WAS a whistle, and he got up and ran into the end zone, that would be "bad".

I'd be okay if, when a coach throws the challenge flag on an auto-review play (score, turnover, inside 2:00 or OT), then they lose all remaining challenges and a timeout, plus a 15-yd penalty on the next scrimmage* play (i.e. not a kick, unless the opponent agrees to that). As has been said many times so far, they should always strive to get the call right, which the rules (and/or their interpretation) prevented yesterday.

/* yeah, I know it's probably not the right term technically, but I want the opponent to be able to elect not to have the 15-yds on a kick-off, b/c what good are those yards if its a touchback anyway?

If there is no flag, if there anything TO challenge? Can you challenge the run in general for not being called down?

/Honest question, as I thought he threw the challenge flag before the score actually happened, but after the HOU player got up from the failed (sorta) tackle.

If he had been tackled at the one (or even given himself up, like at the end of the Redskins game) it would not be automatic review, Schwartz's flag would have been legitimate and yes they could see that the runner was down and call the ball back to the spot he was down.

If there is no flag, if there anything TO challenge? Can you challenge the run in general for not being called down?

/Honest question, as I thought he threw the challenge flag before the score actually happened, but after the HOU player got up from the failed (sorta) tackle.

If he goes down at the 1 it would have been business as usual and we would not be here right now. Schwartz would have thrown his flag and it would have been reviewed and backed up to where he was downed.

jaylectricity:Shadow Blasko: If he had been down at the one... So not scoring..

Would the challenge still be disallowed?

If there is no flag, if there anything TO challenge? Can you challenge the run in general for not being called down?

/Honest question, as I thought he threw the challenge flag before the score actually happened, but after the HOU player got up from the failed (sorta) tackle.

If he had been tackled at the one (or even given himself up, like at the end of the Redskins game) it would not be automatic review, Schwartz's flag would have been legitimate and yes they could see that the runner was down and call the ball back to the spot he was down.

So if the challenge flag was thrown before the score (thus automatically reviewed) was it not a legal challenge call?

If there is no flag, if there anything TO challenge? Can you challenge the run in general for not being called down?

/Honest question, as I thought he threw the challenge flag before the score actually happened, but after the HOU player got up from the failed (sorta) tackle.

My understanding, in that case, is that the challenge would no longer have been "illegal" (i.e. thrown in a situation of auto-review), since it wasn't a score, a turnover, or inside 2:00 or OT. Importantly, I believe you cannot challenge a down-by-contact ruling, which is why the refs let it go in the first place. Had he in fact not been down, but the refs blew the play dead, then the Texans wouldn't've been able to challenge, since a positive DbC ruling isn't reviewable (See Hochuli and the fumble-cum-incompletion game w/ the Broncos). But I'm pretty sure you can challenge a missed DbC call, just like a trapped ball that was incorrectly called a completion.

I was apparently wrong in my assumption that he threw the challenge flag BEFORE the player crossed the goal line. Seemed to me that he did, but I was also in food coma at that moment.

Doesn't matter when you throw it. Everything is the same instance till the play officially ends....he reaches the end zone or someone blows the whistle.

Wow. Thats just... Weird.

It wasn't wrong when he did it, but it was wrong before the play ended, thus wrong.

This is why I don't bet on sports. That just makes no sense to me.

I suppose when taken in the context of "A play is a play, from snap to whistle" then it makes sense, but since the challenge seemed to me to be "Hey! There should have been a whistle here, WAY back here!" then the technicalities of the ruling prevent the challenge from being an effective tool.

I was apparently wrong in my assumption that he threw the challenge flag BEFORE the player crossed the goal line. Seemed to me that he did, but I was also in food coma at that moment.

Doesn't matter when you throw it. Everything is the same instance till the play officially ends....he reaches the end zone or someone blows the whistle.

Wow. Thats just... Weird.

It wasn't wrong when he did it, but it was wrong before the play ended, thus wrong.

This is why I don't bet on sports. That just makes no sense to me.

I suppose when taken in the context of "A play is a play, from snap to whistle" then it makes sense, but since the challenge seemed to me to be "Hey! There should have been a whistle here, WAY back here!" then the technicalities of the ruling prevent the challenge from being an effective tool.

I agree that the rule is counterproductive to what instant replay was brought in to do...get the call right. I mean, sure, give the guy a slap on the wrist. But essentially saying, "We know we are making the wrong call here with the game at stake, but it is the only way you will learn!" is kinda crazy.

It wasn't wrong when he did it, but it was wrong before the play ended, thus wrong.

This is why I don't bet on sports. That just makes no sense to me.

I suppose when taken in the context of "A play is a play, from snap to whistle" then it makes sense, but since the challenge seemed to me to be "Hey! There should have been a whistle here, WAY back here!" then the technicalities of the ruling prevent the challenge from being an effective tool.

Maybe you should try grasping the sport of football before you try tackling the intricacies of the challenge rules.

Leader O'Cola:his decision to settle for a 47 yard FG on 3rd down was far more egregious. it was calculated, not spur of the moment emotion.

He did thaton 3rd down?!? Wow! I couldn't follow the OT as I was otw home from work (Canuck TG was last month). I did not know he did that on 3rd down....at 47 yeards....he should probably be fired for making TWO crazy mistakes if that is in fact the case.

JohnnyCanuck:He did thaton 3rd down?!? Wow! I couldn't follow the OT as I was otw home from work (Canuck TG was last month). I did not know he did that on 3rd down....at 47 yeards....he should probably be fired for making TWO crazy mistakes if that is in fact the case.

Kicking the field goal on third downin overtime isn't uncommon, but it's usually more of a gimme than a 47 yarder. If the Texans had attempted their first field goal in overtime on third down they very well may have won at that point. Instead, they moved the ball from the center of the field to the left hashmark, and lost four yards in the process. For that matter, the Texans kicked the game winning field goal on first down. I thought at the time that if they were satisfied with their field position at that time they should have kneeled three times to run time off the clock, just in case they missed it.